As President Barack Obama attempts to goad Congress into passinglandmark health care reform legislation by early August, more andmore lawmakers are calling for the brakes.

Republicans, firmly in the congressional minority, are part of abipartisan group of senators asking for time to try and craft amore palatable option for addressing the important national issue.But more importantly, even some leaders of Obama’s Democratic Partyare questioning the timetable for the need for action.

On the heels of massive stimulus legislation, which viewed ineven the best light has produced mixed results, Obama is pressingfor a health care overhaul that is estimated to cost upward of $1.5trillion over the next 10 years.

In the Senate, a sticking point appears to be whether there willbe a tax on health care benefits. Obama opposes that aspect, butsome Democratic senators are pushing for it. The tax issue is butone of many troubling points that business people and everydaycitizens should find terrifying.

In House committee action, Republicans were unsuccessful withamendments to eliminate a government insurance option and to deleterequirements for employers to provide health care. Republicans alsofailed on amendments to limit medical malpractice awards and toprevent the government insurance plan from covering abortions.

Health care reform, namely slowing rising costs and extendingcoverage to millions of families who lack it, has been labeled asObama’s top domestic priority. That is a worthy goal, but at whatcost and why within months of his taking office.

Comments from Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the CongressionalBudget Office, Congress’ budget watchdog, should be seen as a clearcaution flag.

Elmendorf said, “We do not see the sort of fundamental changesthat would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal healthspending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, thelegislation significantly expands the federal responsibility forhealth care costs.”

Opposition to the legislation is not about bashing Obama ortrying to stand in the way of action. Spiraling health care costsdo need to be reined in and there is a definite need to help thosewithout insurance.

But rushing headlong into passage of highly complicated,expansive and expensive legislation for the sake of meeting anarbitrary deadline that seems to be tied to popularity polls isasinine.

Far too many questions remain to be answered for the legislationto continue at its current pace.

What happens when insurance companies go out of business or stopoffering coverage because they could not charge higher premiums forpre-existing conditions or cannot compete with a government-runprogram? While “the rich” are being targeted to cover some of thelegislation’s costs, who pays if the significant expansion of thefederal responsibility for health care costs goes beyondprojections? And isn’t that a possibility if more people starttaking advantage of “free” health care coverage?

Solid answers to those questions and a multitude of others areelusive and require time to contemplate. If for no other reasonthan those, Congress should push back the president’s stateddeadline and take more time to diagnose a remedy for the nation’shealth care dilemma.